OpenDocument Massachusetts hearing

Yesterday's hearing (Monday, October 31, 2005) at the Massachusetts State House was clearly an attempt to delay adoption of OpenDocument Format (ODF) --- delivering a swipe at Peter Quinn, CIO and Director of the state's Information and Technology Division.

The Senate Post Audit Committee Chair, Senator Marc Pacheco, was well-versed in the usual Microsoft talking points against ODF. The verbal
testimony he sought, was a predictable and one-sided affair. No
comments or questions were allowed from the large audience, and there
was frustration that written testimony delivered to the hearing, and in
support of Massachusetts adopting ODF, went unmentioned.

The Senator expressed some misunderstandings during the hearing,
including that, OpenOffice was licensed under GPL (it's licensed under
the LGPL), and that ODF would mean choosing OpenOffice at the expense
of other vendors (OpenDocument is of course a format, not software).

After the hearing closed, I spoke with Jesse Stanesa, policy director
for the Post Audit Committee, about having future direct discussions
with the committee. The FSF is also collecting your comments in support of Massachusetts adopting ODF <campaigns@fsf.org>.

Amusingly, during the Senator's final statements at the hearing he
commented, "We've got all self-serving perspectives in terms of
industry groups. Certainly no one needs to speak for Microsoft."

These are the notes taken from oral arguments at on the
OpenDocument format adoption by Massachusetts. These are not to be
considered verbatim quotes, but rather real-time notes taken during
the meeting. Where I could not discern the names of the people
testifying I have indicated the response by a partial name or
department.

Where I've had to rely on paraphrasing more so than the rest of
the notes, I've indicated that wording by setting it with square
brackets [].

Summary of Committee Meeting

The Senate Post Audit Committee held a meeting on Monday, October
31, 2005 in the Massachusetts State House regarding the IT Division's
proposal to adopt the OpenDocument format. The IT Division (ITD), the
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, several disabilities
groups and finally the state auditor's office testified on what they
thought the standard would mean for them. There were three main
concerns that Senator Pacheco, chair of the meeting, raised:

Whether ITD has the authority to enforce the OpenDocument
format (ODF) and move forward with it. ITD thinks they can move
forward, while the Secretary's Office has said they cannot. This
remains to be resolved.

If ITD collaborated with the correct people as they
brought this proposal forward. The state's disability services
agencies that testified believe they were not consulted appropriately,
as did the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

If the preliminary cost analysis the ITD made regarding a
switch to the ODF standard was accurate and included all factors. The
state auditors have yet to look at the preliminary document and may
give an interim report on their findings to speed up the process.

Senator Pacheco publicly asked Peter Quinn of the ITD to put a
pause on any further action on the adoption of ODF until these
concerns have been addressed. It was fairly clear from the hearing
that the Senator's aim is to delay and quash OpenDocument from being
adopted.

Observations on the room

Estimated attendance: approximately 50 people to begin with,
dwindling down to about 30 by the meeting's end. There was a strong
contingent present from the Free Software Foundation.

Senator Pacheco (Marc.Pacheco@state.ma.us) sits in the front of
the room, this being his meeting. Seated to his right is Jesse
Stanesa, the policy director for the Post Audit Committee (this is
their meeting). To his left is Senator Richard Moore
(Richard.Moore@state.ma.us).

Meeting Starts

The room, we are told, is changed from A1 due to another meeting
in that room.

Senator Pacheco: [Sets the parameters of the meeting]
Committee reviews government policies, in best interest of citizens
and tax payers. By statute, they cover the evaluation of efficiency of
operations, faithfulness of administrative compliance, effecting an
agency of Commonwealth.

Policy should be adopted in best interest of tax payers and not
one company, ensuring we have more competition, not less. Committee
will rely on many stakeholders: IT, industry experts, citizen
advocates, none should be excluded in a standard

Secretary of Commonwealth is chief IT person for the Commonwealth.

Haven been meeting with industry leaders for almost two
years. They want to concentrate on process they have followed, go over
the public records issues that are involved in electronic public
records, looking at procurement of services in Commonwealth, and the
cost of the choices they make should this move forward

Senator Pacheco has talked about procurement, cost analysis,
proceedings with Peter in past meetings. Would like to have him
address the authority that ITD believes it has under 110G 17, in terms
of its agency and being able to move forward with the proposal.

Peter Quinn: I would like to read statement. Welcome opportunity
to have questions to clear up misunderstanding of ODF format. Would
like to put their commission in context. How could the Commonwealth
better use tech? There is currently a hodgepodge, with information
silos. State agencies must share information, and cannot do so without
building expensive interfaces as it currently stands. Their goal:
everything can talk to anything, without expensive retrofitting of
technologies. There was a specific recommendation from a previous
commission. This architecture is based on framework from Federal
Government. Focused on open standard of technologies. Adoption of
industry standards can allow them to operate seamlessly. ITD has
published various version of the document. [Then, follows a definition
of ODF and XML as technical standards.]

Chose to adopt as a standard, along with Library of Congress, a
standard text format called OTF. Want them to be saved in a non
proprietary XML format. Anyone who thinks that documents should be
stored otherwise does not know what they are talking about. Many other
places are thinking about something similar to this. Proprietary
formats are copyrighted, and essentially worse because burdened by
patents. ODF is available under copyright licenses that offer the most
latitude to programmers and users. Documents created in proprietary
formats will be inaccessible centuries from now because the ability to
read them is tied to one particular company. These docs in ODF are far
more likely to be readable 300 years from now.

The docs belong to the people and it should not restrict access to
the people. Wants to dispel myths in a statement. This decision is
limited to executive agencies, not just judiciary. Does not apply to
members of the public. Would require ODF when sending documents to
members of the public. Does not require migration of current documents
to new format.

Applies only to office documents and not legacy
technologies. Those other formats will be maintained until other
systems are found.

Informed by members of the disability community that there are no
programs that work with ODF for them. But ITD is working with many
other people to make sure these applications are available and will be
available by the time this standard comes out.

Misconception that this decision limits competition.

ITD doesn't care about how agencies create and design documents -
but when they are done, these docs need to be in a format for
longevity. The ODF is totally unencumbered by patents. Our
responsibility for generations to come to follow this kind of
standard.

Sen. Pacheco: [asks question about the consultants for their
study] Peter Quinn: original consultant was Price, Waterhouse,
Coopers; they got purchased by IBM in the middle of the process.

Senator Pacheco: you are aware that the est. of 2004 advisory
board?

Senator Pacheco: Had worked to file legislation to create advisory
board of 2004, want to engage public members in that advisory.

Senator Pacheco: What was the one recommendation out of that
board?

Peter Quinn: Strategic business plan on high level, innumerous
discussion about technologies that could be used to implement that
plan.

Senator Pacheco: There was one recommendation to include all the
partners, referring to engagement of constitutional officers

Linda Hamel, ITD Counsel: ITD included each of constitutional
offices, in future budget, they were deleted, ITD felt that they agree
with SP that every constitutional officer should have a voice; they
were left out by the legislature.

Senator Pacheco: Have they had or not had input?

Linda Hamel: The recommendation was that as a group, that the
branches meet to propose a strategic plan on a regular basis. There
was never any question that they would be called upon. The involvement
recommendation was that they work together annually and avoid a
dictation from a department.

Senator Pacheco: Has questions of constitutionality. Wants to go
back to 2004 commission. The legislature pro actively adopted a
statute that put forth an advisory process of which Mass. legislature
had assumed would be followed. The newest law that's on the books in
terms of advisory. Are you suggesting that the executive branch or
your agency simply ignored what the legislature had seen as an
important role in putting all of the agencies together? Or, you don't
think the language was constitutional? Legislature adopted the
language of the advisory committee. Why wasn't the committee expanded?

Linda Hamel: Internal ITD policies only refer to Executive
branch. IT advisory board is required to meet annually, several times
a year to arrive by consensus a strategic plan for all of the
branches. This would involve participation of constitutional
offices. But the board is to advise the ITD. In the process of
drafting legislature. she was rapped on the wrist verbally for failure
to ensure that whatever they did would abide by the opinion of the
justices. Prior efforts were struck down as unconstitutional that they
wanted people from different branches to participation. They have
tried mightily to share the information and about the work they were
doing. At end of her presentation, that was based on the results of
that negotiation. They were not sure what they were going to do. Over
90% of the desktop business is affected by this decision.

Senator Pacheco: Still doesn't answer the question. The question
was that there was an advisory board established by legislature. The
advisory board shall advise the chief information officer on
technology issues. Should draft, recommend things that include
tech. standards. The role of the advisory board is to advise, not the
authority to implement or dictate. The advisory board was supposed to
be advisory in nature. Should have presented it before any adoption
came forth. It was to be a collaborative process. To have everything
explained so that people could raise their objections. Even with
existing advisory board, there were members of the board that
expressed opposition to moving forward. Senator Hart was member of
advisory board.

Linda Hamel: there was clearly an absence of unified response on
that issue on May 11. The legislature talks about a strategic plan for
information technology is an extremely general document. The ETRM is a
blueprint for what sort of technology they will use and what
formats. The ETRM only applies to ITD. The strategic plan was the
overall contribution.

Senator Pacheco: The board should have been more cooperative,
especially with this dramatic and far-reaching impact. Let's move to
the authority issue. You identify your authority on your website as a
board that creates standards. Why did you leave rest of section off
the webpage?

Linda Hamel: You're referring to the FAQ. ITD has authority under
7(4a)d, to create standards. The format is a standard. Both the
Secretary of the Commonwealth and the ITD have the powers that you
cite. Both the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the ITD have the
right to set rules about about standards people can create,
maintain. There are about 1750 technologies in the department. There
is no current long-term archive plan for the electronic storage of
documents. As an example: we have two legacy systems for payroll
data. PIMS and CAPS systems. One of the technologists pulled out 188
million personnel records stretching back decades in the systems. They
were created in formats no longer in use. We look forward to working
with Secretary to create an electronic archive.

Senator Pacheco: clarification for everyone listening to the
hearing. The full legislature refers to supervisor of records, ITD and
records board(?). This is not a regulation, it's a standard?

Linda Hamel: Yes, it's a standard, not a regulation.

Senator Pacheco: So a standard does not need the approval of the
supervisor of public records for Commonwealth?

Linda Hamel: There's a legal structure put in place long before
electronic records long before anyone thought about it. The laws were
all created in a paper world. When Office of Management Information
System (OMIS - office that came before ITD). There is a tension
between old and new language. Have not previously gone to the
Secretary of Commonwealth because we don't need to; like in the case
of using security devices for some offices.

Senator Pacheco: Does it bother you that the Boston Globe has
reported that they are concerned on your handling of this?

Linda Hamel: I am concerned that the supervisor of public records
is telling people something different than what's in the
legislature. Concerned that the Secretary is taking a different path
than the Library of Congress.

Senator Pacheco: Does the Library of Congress take a position on
this?

Linda Hamel: Referring to document format, not just a particular
program.

Senator Pacheco: Yes or no answer on whether they came out in
favor of OpenOffice.

Linda Hamel: They never specified that you have to use
OpenOffice. They recommend a document format, not a program.

Senator Pacheco: Isn't it a practical reality that we would use
OpenOffice? OpenOffice is the product.

Linda Hamel: ITD understands that there are many programs that can
support OpenDocument.

Senator Pacheco: You're talking about Jan. 2007. Let's go back to
Secretary of State issue of formats.

Linda Hamel: ITD looks at constitution first, then enabling
legislation - that they share the obligation with Secretary of
Commonwealth to give recommendations.

Senator Pacheco: Let's move to policies you're looking at. You see
this is a standard. You're establishing a standard.

Linda Hamel: Correct.

Senator Pacheco: under the standard, which products specifically
can the implementation of this strategy support the OpenDocument
format? Peter Quinn: There are a number of programs: KOffice,
OpenOffice., yesterday Google came out in support of
OpenOffice. Standards have always been good for industry. We are not
telling people what to buy. This is a standard. Vendors have stepped
up to the standard. Backed away from giving open source and open
standards equal footing. The standard here today is created by a
standards body (OASIS). The standard is being moved up to be ratified
by the International Standard committee. Folks do not feel that
Microsoft's format is open enough. They wanted guidance to make sure
they can preserve documents. Everyone thought that XML should be an
open format, except one company. Put it up for public comment. Have
preferential treatment to vendors. very reminiscent of what happened
in the 90s with Internet protocols.

Senator Pacheco: Question about the reference to the other
company. They have business with the Commonwealth. Negotiations with
ITD, my understanding in Jan of 2005 that Secretary had announced that
there was a licensing agreement which included Office in the new
reference.

Peter Quinn: They put up for public comment the policies. There
was a firestorm.

Linda Hamel: I will call a spade a spade. It is true that we had
negotiations with Microsoft about their XML schema and what their
format meant. People in the open standards committee differed about
what that term "open" means to them. We expressed at the time that we
didn't get everything we sought in the negotiations with Microsoft. At
the time, they put it up for comment. It was based on what we knew
about "open" at the time. The public said that this wasn't their
version of open. There's a spectrum of openness. Microsoft's license
is not as open as some licenses. That was not good enough that for the
open standards community. I am not in any position to state what
Secretary Chris said.

Peter Quinn: We did not have the final Microsoft document. He said
that he thought that if these things came forward it would be an
acceptable format.

Senator Pacheco: Why are you concerned about the difference in
$-1òüopen sourceòý and òüopen standardòý as terms?

Linda Hamel: Because both proprietary and open source communities
can support an open standard.

Senator Pacheco: That's interesting. Let me try to follow
this. You referenced that OpenOffice can be used because it's one of
the platforms that can work because it supports ODF. Under OpenOffice,
there is what is called the GPL. Linda Hamel: Not necessarily. Some
vendors distribute it under the GPL, some under dual licensing with
the GPL as one license. Even under the open source community, there is
a question on the dual licensing.

Senator Pacheco: Hoping that when sent early letter, said that
wanted to have objective third party to go over the cost issues and
other issues. We were hoping that they would be able to wait a little
to see if some of the assumptions that were made are correct. I am
concerned that proprietary software companies bidding on work under
the OpenDocument standard. If you do have OpenOffice product which has
GPL as one of the elements, obviously in order to meet the standard,
then, that would mean that proprietary company would have to release
its code.

Linda Hamel: It is not be necessary for a company to release its
code for their product if they choose the OpenDocument format to
support. Just as Microsoft does not have to release its code to
support the PDF standard.

Peter Quinn: Again, we're not saying anything about procurement,
just a standard.

Senator Pacheco: Think you're going to find that everyone is able
to participate, there's a large section of the existing IT community
that is being excluded from participation as a consequence of at least
the way that the policy is written right now. More important than
technology piece is that when you are looking at procurement, cost,
associated with all of this for the savings associated with this and
the statutory that it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone
gets a say. You think will stimulate more competition.

Linda Hamel: Today, such a high percentage of our office programs
are sold by one vendor. OpenDocument format will fling open door to
competition.

Senator Pacheco: Numerous meetings with industry leaders, asked
what prevents them from bidding. Said that they can, and they do run
bids and that they are able to participate in existing ways
today. Seems like there's one entity that under the latest
structure. We don't tell folks what business model to use. If this
stimulates competition, why is it that groups like Citizens Against
Government waste, for example, claim that it limits competition? Have
you consulted these groups at all that have expressed these concerns,
or explained to them what to do?

Linda Hamel: Entities like those, in most cases, you will find
Microsoft funding those groups. It's important to think about that
when asking these questions. Are there any citizens that came forward
and said that their due process was violated? Microsoft laid down
process questions. When accepting comments, we looked at these
grassroots entities and looked at the sponsors, and they were funded
by corporations.

Senator Pacheco: Are they wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft?

Linda Hamel: Your words, not mine.

Peter Quinn: You are referencing the industries in
Massachusetts. Everyone from the business community organization they
consulted was on the side of open standards.

Senator Pacheco: There's an analogy I've used here. I don't care
what kind of car you drive, just as long as you can reach the same
parking space. That's why I asked in letter during comment period that
we at least postpone this proposal only until auditors office has
taken a chance to look and review and comment before there was an
implementation of policy. Why couldn't you wait until those two
offices had an opportunity to review? There were concerns from the
disability community. There are concerns out there, why couldn't you
wait? People in high ranking spots across government with very strong
concerns about the way this policy was handled. By the way, they are
supportive of open standards. Why are there all these concerns? They
are still there. They talked about these in Dec. of 2003.

You referenced other products that can work, that the GPL piece is
not accurate according to my understanding of it. That's not what this
is about. But that's what those offices, those check and balance
offices, is what it's all about. Six of the last meetings weren't even
held, they were canceled. Why isn't that resolved?

Peter Quinn: Start with accessibility piece. The accessibility
community has been denied to get the tools they need for years. We're
committed to changing that paradigm. They want to make sure they have
a consideration in choice of software. Sun, IBM, Adobe are working to
create international accessibility standards. The architecture is
already built into StarOffice, OpenOffice, and Mozilla to name a few.

Linda Hamel: We're not saying that Microsoft hasn't been a great
business partner for many years. One example - when agencies dealing
with low accessibility to Microsoft products, they worked to change
that.

Senator Pacheco: Blaming the process has been my concern. We had a
process here that came out, a memo from Sept 26, 2003. A policy that
was put in place for a green light in November, a post audit committee
in December. The advisory committee had actually recommended MOUs to
try to address these types of things. We don't see the
collaboration. You are only now addressing the concerns of the
disability community. It doesn't appear that there was a cost analysis
done before the release. The open source movement started with a group
of engineers to develop an alternative operating system, that thrives
on collaboration. This is perhaps the most democratic and transparent
things in the business world. The process behind ETRM at least appears
to subvert the whole open source movement. That's what I am concerned
about the most. It gets me to the last piece, relative to cost of the
system. Let me bring you back to Nov 2003. Was there a cost analysis
done?

Peter Quinn: When we first announced it, there was not.

Senator Pacheco: There was an open standards/open source piece. We
had it in a different direction. It had the potential of impacting
some 50,000 desktops in a completely different direction, why wasn't
there a cost analysis done?

Peter Quinn: It was an outgrowth of the commission to create
standards in the Commonwealth. We said to people treat open source as
the best value in business. When replacing, is there an appropriate
technology and is it cost effective?

Senator Pacheco: When we met in 2003 for the post audit committee,
I thought we had this discussion about cost and that we were going to
get an analysis from ITD for what you thought the costs would be. Now
we're here 2 years later and we just received one weeks ago. That cost
analysis that you sent me (I have in turn sent it to the state
auditors division) there were assumptions built into that that were
based upon Microsoft 12, for example. Why was that built in?

Peter Quinn: We talked about a general topic. Talking about
formats and what you asked, what would that look like for the entire
desktop. Sometime over three to five years, the entire 50,000 system
will be replaced. That's the natural cycle of hardware. Every office
product requires more powerful machines.

Senator Pacheco: You referenced earlier that one of the things
that the disabilities community had suggested was that Microsoft
office still be included for a time. I'm assuming that there is still
a fee there. For the most part, they buy it one time and they don't do
a maintenance. Will there be some around? Two or three times a week, I
get something across my desk I can't open. Because this doesn't apply
to the general public, there will always be disparate systems to open
things from the public. OpenOffice can open up all sorts of documents
and can run on platforms that have been around for 6, 7, 8 years,
which Microsoft's products can't do. We have to handle a variety of
operating systems.

Senator Pacheco: Explain to me the components you are looking at
as you go through this. You'd think that both in 2003, before an
executive branch agency would announce they are moving in a particular
situation. We asked for some information asking for analysis to be
done. We finally received an analysis which was a 2-page analysis that
was given to our office. That analysis was wanting in terms of looking
at a detailed analysis. How did you go about measuring what these
costs/benefits are?

Peter Quinn: The components - what is the cost to buy OpenOffice
vs. Microsoft office. The pricing I use it what we pay today for
Office 2000. If we assume for a minute that the training component is
equal on both sides and intros to word processing and Excel
spreadsheets. I also included that if you used the newer versions, you
will probably have to exchange 20% of desktops that cannot operate
Word. If you replaced the desktop, the base price of $500/desktop. If
you replaced 10,000 desktops, you will probably need a new operating
system. All the costs, and added them up. 8 million for OpenOffice and
34 million for Microsoft 12 (2003). 1.5 hours to replace a desktop,
450-900,000 dollars to replace.

Senator Pacheco: How about maintenance. We treat it the same. We
generally do not buy maintenance on an office product. You raise cost
on both sides, or you don't have cost on both sides.

Senator Pacheco: Looking ahead at the estimated maintenance cost
in supporting different alternatives. In the cost analysis, you have
no numbers on estimated productivity. Typically, we don't put in
something that we don't necessarily have to do. It's my understanding
that we don't have to go to Office 12 at all. All of the systems can
be updated under our existing agreements without any additional costs
in terms of assumptions made they we have to replace all the
hardware. We'll leave that to the hardware experts in the auditors
office. Would you look at the alternative choices and where the
background on all of it is?

Peter Quinn: One, is the assumption that you don't have to do
anything. But the reality is that you always have to do something as
support runs out. We took a look at how people use their desktops. The
majority of people open up word documents and open up
spreadsheets. They don't write them anymore, they just view them. They
use email and they use the Internet. We spend a lot of money and
people use it almost the same way they use a TV clicker. They only use
a small fraction of what the remote can do. That's what we're seeing
here. The question of productivity - should the Commonwealth even be
investing in suites, and if we should, should we be paying that much
money? People can only get longterm upgrades if they've paid for
that. For the most part, people didn't renew contracts to get free
upgrades. We're paying for all these upgrades, but us, the consumers,
the return on investment is pretty dismal.

Senator Pacheco: So, just want to conclude on this. You're telling
me that when the auditor's office gets through with this, that you're
estimating a savings of 26 million dollars, even though in the memo
that you received in 2003 from then Secretary Chris, he acknowledged
that the policy will take time, energy and money. Is this a reference
to the 8 million in training, or was he referring to other costs not
included in analysis?

Peter Quinn: That memo was referring to all technology in the
Commonwealth. Not specifically referencing desktops at all. We have
previously avoided talking about desktops till now because it's the
most personal and challenging to talk about.

Senator Pacheco: Just a couple of requests: Wants general council
to send your analysis of how you can move forward statutorily so that
we can analyze and study from a legal perspective. Also, with the
advisory board piece, I heard, although it wasn't said directly, I
heard reference to constitutionality - refer you to Dow
vs. Commonwealth. Basically it sets forth some things you might want
to take a look at that was not the job. Especially reference MBTA
vs. State Audit 430MA783-792-793 (2000). Constitutionality issue is
brought up. ITD is a creation of the legislature and is barred from
questioning constitutionality under that case. That law on the
advisory committee was est. did not set forth the dictatorial tone at
all, but rather a collaborative one. Ask that we also get opinion back
from your office in relationship with this advisory board and what is
taking place now. We would like to have further discussions on costs.

Linda Hamel: Do you want us to do an additional cost assessment?

Senator Pacheco: Just want to make sure that what you gave me is
what you want to be on the final public record. I would think that you
want to take a second look at what you gave me. I would like to know
when it was done, not when I received it, but when it was done, what
meetings were held, the various IT folks in the divisions you talked
with. Who you talked with when, and what they had to say. Trying to
get a handle on total costs.

Senator Moore: Some concern over who's minding the store, seeing
as how this committee has sat on this for two years. Wants to get
questions and issues resolved and that there is access to all
citizens. I would hope that your office would resolve that.

Senator Pacheco: Excuse the witnesses.

Senator Pacheco: Attorney Cody, Office of Public
Records. Supervisor of records for commonwealth.

Attorney Cody: Mass General Law 66m mandated to take all necessary
measures to secure preservation. Est. records management policy for
commonwealth. Electronic records have been primary focus of his
office. Assures committee that Mass. is not experiencing a
crisis. Mass. is in a state of transition. But this does not alter the
basic fundamentals of records management. The overwhelming majority of
documents have life of 7 years or less. A well designed and efficient
program is vital to the success of any records management. This office
adheres to a rigorous policy: every record forwarded is looked at for
archiving at Columbia Point. They convert all electronic records to
multiple forms and formats. The hardware and software used in the
process is selected by him, the head archivist, etc. We use many
different vendors and processes. The introduction of meta data. This
process works very well. It provides them with flexible. A rigid
policy, like the one before you, that excludes vendors, does not serve
the Commonwealth well. Will result in many records being lost or
destroyed. Recommends that they reject the proposal in favor of more
review.

Supervisor of records of Commonwealth has all the control over
records management. From time to time, they will contact various
agencies and principalities and ask them for their input and we
oversee that process. Asking ITD to help him oversee any new
regulation with regard to allowing electronic transactions. Not in
their authority to approve any recommendations for electronic records.

Senator Pacheco: If your office has an objection to moving forward
and they move forward anyway (ITD), that they would be in violation of
statute?

Attorney Cody: Absolutely. They are more of an advisory role to
us. I expressed on several occasions that he's not in favor of the
policy.

Senator Pacheco: SO Mr. Quinn were aware of your position on this?
Despite them being aware of it, that they moved forward anyway.

Attorney Cody: Correct. respecting to the attorney/client
relationship. Not in favor of this.

Senator Pacheco: So, this ETRM was not developed jointly. Did you
have any recommendations for this?

Attorney Cody: It was changed before my eyes, it didn't seem like
there was any direction for us to give input. I was allowed to give
input, but wasn't sure when they wanted it or what they wanted a
comment on.

Senator Pacheco: So, you were told that it was a decision that was
made and you were told that it would happen that way?

Attorney Cody: They join in authority, not sole. They do not have
the ability to move forward.

Senator Pacheco: The office of the secretary of the
commonwealth. In terms of the advisory committee has put worth
developing a process for moving forward. There was recommendation to
put in place a process. To what extent did you have any conversations
with the advisory committee, or did anyone attend those meetings?

Attorney Cody: I have not had any meetings with them. Did not
attend some meetings.

Senator Pacheco: There were infrequent meetings and 6 of the last
several meetings had been canceled. They were all around the time when
we were moving forward with this announcement.

Attorney Cody: I had the IT person going.

Senator Pacheco: Any questions? I didn't think you'd be as direct
as you were or as certain. After you've said that, I don't have a lot
of questions for you. What I'm hearing you say is that the ITD agency
has moved forward unilaterally and you do not believe they have the
authority under Mass. General Laws.

Senator Moore: A little unrelated, but the issues of public
records in the event of natural tragedy. The solution involved and the
digitization. So this is something we want to talk to you in the
future about.

Senator Pacheco: One final question. It's very important to make
sure that everyone abodes by laws of public records. Where do we go if
there's a stalemate here between you and the ITD? Can we file
something? What happens when there's that type of disagreement?

Attorney Cody: There is vague language in the statute that may be
available to the supervisor.

Senator Pacheco: If you could get back to us on this. You heard my
concerns earlier. Thank you for your testimony.

Barbara Lybarger: My testimony will be going directly to a number
of issues. I am the Directory. The state agency of the coordinator for
the executive branch. Goal: a resource to the community of people with
disabilities. Enables them to bring these issues to the table. MOD
became aware of this at the same time as the general public. Reviewed
the draft and submitted comments. Expressed concerns that there are
limited products that support the OpenDocument. That same day, they
were commented by ITD to identify specific needs for people with
disabilities. Strictly executive branch technology. AS I sate in my
comments in Sept. to ITD, Mass. is always referenced as a leader. ITD
in partnership with other places convinced Microsoft to bring their
product up to standard. We are concerned that we not take an
unintended step backward to people with disabilities. WE are obligated
to ensure that we can effectively communicate with them. It must
afford the same accessibility to people with dis. as it does the
general public. Although the implication is currently being tested in
courts in other states, certainly in public opinion it would be
fundamentally wrong to move to a system with less options for people
with disabilities. We are now working with ITD to correct this.

Senator Pacheco: A few questions. In your testimony, you state
that MOD became aware at the same time as the general public. There
was no consultation ahead of time>? Even after the disability
community in general had raised early concerns?

Barbara Lybarger: The actual implementation, yes.

Senator Pacheco: Right now, the workers now. We have a
Windows-based technology. What have you been told will take place with
the now-collaborative meetings?

Barbara Lybarger: We've been working with ITD and several groups,
that they will not implement technology in the government that isn't
at least as good as what we have now.

Senator Pacheco: You say that your experiences lead you to the
apprehensive state between now and 15 months from now that there isn't
enough time to correct these concerns.

Barbara Lybarger: I'm lucky I can turn my computer on. I've spent
time talking to people who do. I've been told that this is a very
opportunistic timeline. The community of people I represent actually
support the opportunity to support various kinds of software. Our
concern is that timeline be realistic so that the programs are
developed and they are tested and that there is proper support in
place.

Senator Pacheco: There were no conversations that I'm assuming
were made in terms of cost, training, equipment, etc?

Barbara Lybarger: Correct.

Senator Pacheco: So if those conversations were not help with the
office of disabilities, then if those weren't held. It would be very
difficult to say that those were part of the cost analysis.

Barbara Lybarger: I can't speak to that.

Senator Pacheco: How many people throughout the commonwealth in
the executive branch would be impacted by this issue?

Barbara Lybarger: There's really not a good answer to that
question. We don't keep track of people with disabilities. This would
impact people who use assistive technologies and they wouldn't
classify as people with disabilities. I would venture to say that more
than 19% of people would be using assistive technologies.

Senator Pacheco: So you're using a national number in terms of
self-reporting general public nationally.

Barbara Lybarger: Unfortunately, we know that the employment rate
with people with disabilities is lower than the general public.

Senator Pacheco: If you'd like to supplement your testimony in the
future, or your own budget and costs (in terms of training, those
types of things), we'd certainly be better informed.

Barbara Lybarger: Thank you.

Senator Pacheco: We'll contact you with updates. Committee to call
Disability Policy Consortium. Thank you for being here.

DPC: Speaking for Baystate Council of the Blind. Grew up a lot
with the evolution of the computer. Now working in the Windows
department. The level of access today far exceeds anything available
in the past. I can use Word, interface that with Excel, can use
Internet and Email, in concert with each other. Have created and
analyzed reports that go beyond the typical use of
technology. Particularly people who are blind, it's the technology
that represents the only means they have. We oppose this change and
will continue to oppose until convinced that it will not have a
negative impact on consumers or employees. We have faced in past where
entity has said to us that they will make a new software change and
then retrofitting it to make accessible. Accessibility sometimes
cannot be added afterwards. In those cases where it can, it is always
more expensive. We are very concerned that accessibility be considered
from the start. Integral part of every part of process. One of the
most problematic is the PDF format. In order for a PDF doc to be
accessible with a screen reader, that document must have been created
with the latest accessibility guidelines in mind. This is something
that concerns us a lot. The Labor Dept. has moved away from ODF
(www.disabilityinfo.gov) because of the lack of technical support for
the open source document guideline. They believe that open source is
still in its infancy and I believe that, too. It will require that the
state est. whose full-time job to make sure that things remain
accessible. We've struggled through numerous ups and down in
technology and we want to do everything we can to ensure that this
will not be another struggle for us. It's a matter of our civil
rights.

Senator Pacheco: It would be helpful to get a copy of your written
testimony.

DPC: Do you have a particular format in mind? [laughter]

John (from DPC): Alarmed by plan to move to ODF. Wide dismissal of
any comments by his organization. Strong negative economic impact on
people with dis. The process to move to ODF was made without
consulting their community. I subscribe to IT mailing lists. Had
executive director want to meet with PQ. Only after public comment
period closed did PQ contact them. Still haven't heard from him. So
many people rely on adaptive equipment which will not currently work
with open source and open document platforms. There are many Windows
implementations of these. Implementation of the format would mean that
people with disabilities could not work for the state. Only 20% of
people with disabilities are employed full-time and another 10% are
part-time. The two agencies responsible for providing jobs to people
with disabilities were not aware of this recommendation. Feels like
people are only thinking about people with dis. only after the
fact. Dissent in the Romney administration is not welcome under
Romney. Will take much time to make drivers. No reason for private
market to develop accessibility. The consumer will be left with
limited choices. Few options for testing equipment. The state has a
poor public record in reporting docs. for people with dis. I use
Mozilla, other open source software when he can, because he doesn't
like Monolithic company. This decision is being made without input
from their community. Feels that they may need a court injunction to
stop this if it proceeds.

Senator Pacheco: When did your organization reach out to contact
ITD or Mr. Quinn?

DPC: A number of us called and emailed Mr. Quinn's office. He said
he'd be in touch in a few days, and still haven't heard from him.

Senator Pacheco: Was impressed that they said that they didn't
hear about it until we did. It's important for the general public for
agencies to be able to come to a hearing like this and speak freely
and stand up for the constituencies they represent.

John: A certain other office that represents has to have a member
of the administration there when he speaks in public.

DPC: A very brief demonstration of the screen reading software on
windows word. When I worked in a large corporation, I was able to make
corrections to documents of others. It is very accessible, some
training is required, only works on Windows, and opens up entire world
that was otherwise unable to us. Can do things all in the Windows
environment. Microsoft hasn't paid their organization any money, but
I'm not a Microsoft basher, but this is the best for us, and I will
continue to use it until something better comes along.

Senator Pacheco: Thank you for testimony. Please stay in
touch. Next, will call John (?), deputy auditor, IT division.

John Buchanan(?): Our audit starts tomorrow afternoon, with
Mr. Quinn and members of his team. What I want to comment on is my
initial reaction to the cost analysis. I viewed it as high level
starting document, not something as a functioning document,. I did
want to comment on a couple of items. I, too, learned about this in
the newspaper when I came back at the end of August. Not as a member
of the advisory board. The state auditor's office is an invited guest
at those meetings. There was a proposal and we submitted feedback on
Sept. 9. What is the cost, what is the analysis behind the cost? We
feel that having documents available in the future is a good
goal. Without the analysis, it's hard to tell if those are reasonable
and can be done. I think the concept is good. What I'd like to see is
that the board sits and looks at the IT strategy. So that we can see
how it impacts certain citizens of the Commonwealth. Our belief is
that we have to develop appropriate rules, and have to take into
account the costs.

Senator Pacheco: Thank you. We know that this is awkward because
you haven't done the audit yet! I'm curious - it looked like it was a
good beginning of assumptions. Without having more information, it
seemed like something that needed a lot more work.

John: My hope is that this serves as a foundation of where we go
with policy.

Senator Pacheco: Would you think, for example - just take a look
at one small office - the office of disabilities. If the office were
not contacted and an analysis were not made, training, costs,
equipment, could any cost benefit analysis that's done be accurate?

John: It would be inaccurate and incomplete. I learned a lot
sitting here this afternoon. I think the item that we've learned is
that technology should be something that helps and enables business
functions of people. I think there's some merit to the statement that
there are many people who don't use the bells and whistles of
technologies and I'm not so sure there aren't other ways of doing
it. I do think there are some strong benefits in terms of OpenDocument
as a standard. But that's very different from a Jan 2007 deadline to
implement this.

Senator Pacheco: One of things we hope you'd take the time to
analyze once you're doing this audit - what the options of other
technology actually do. I have met with several industry groups, you
probably won't believe it, but I've had meetings where they support (3
out of 4) as to what the strategy actually would accomplish in terms
of their own product. A group of people that were supporting the
policy but were taking slightly opposite viewpoints in supporting
it. You get put into a position where you don't know who to
believe. That's why we do have an auditor's office that is
independently voted into office by the citizens of the
commonwealth. Some agency, within its own executive branch, are not
aware of this before it hits the paper. It's stunning that would
happen, that we're moving so fast. They should hold off a little bit,
maybe a month or two, until people have a time to weigh in and your
office can really take a look at this. And that our agency is the
state auditor's office would be able to give us some independent
direction. We've got all self-serving perspectives in terms of
industry groups. Certainly no one needs to speak for Microsoft. I've
met with them, with IBM, they're all great companies. Every group will
give us their spin. We ask you to give us independent feedback. It
would help us with the investigation. Sufficient information is not
totally there at your first glance and you're going to try to have an
in-depth analysis.

John: My hope is that will be forthcoming, starting
tomorrow. Probably one month after implementing policy, February 2007!
[laughter] I would say it would take a few weeks, need to look across
landscape of Commonwealth, pretty good idea after a few weeks to know
what the time frame will look like. If it will take a long time, then
an interim report is good.

Senator Pacheco: An interim report would be good. We're just
trying to know if we have any faith in the document we have now. What
time frame they used, etc.

John: Sometimes, when digging into things, you get more
expansive. I think the cost issue and the process part are the most
important.

Senator Pacheco: Committee on Post Audit will be reaching out to
some of the individuals who testified to follow up on the public
testimony they gave. Further supplement any testimony. We may be in
touch with various industry groups to follow up on what we find out in
terms of what the auditor's office has to say. We'll be in touch with
the IT folks as the audit goes on. An certainly we'll be in discussion
with the disabilities people to let them know what's going on. One
final editorial comment that I would like to make on the record:
again, this committee has called this hearing not because of
technology issues. While that is a concern, and we'll look more about
them, we called this hearing for a number of reasons. 1) Wanted to get
a clarification of the interpretation of the statutory authority of
ITD. ITD thinks they can move forward unilaterally. And the
secretary's office has said they cannot. We have a problem. 2)
Process. Again, in keeping faith with what the open source community
itself has put on the table about being open, having a democratic and
see-through process. And from what I've heard today is that we've have
far less than democracy. When a state agency doesn't find out about
these until the day the announcement to the public is made, that's
bad. 3) Potential cost. If we're moving forward with an initiative, we
have to take into consideration the cost and the impact on the people
in the commonwealth. Because those costs have an unintended influence
on the committees. We found out that if you're not looking at all the
cost centers that any analysis we have now is deficient. There is
reason for concern. We would again ask Mr. Quinn on the public record
to put a pause, a hold on moving forward until the respective offices
here have an opportunity here to really sit down and collaborate
(disabilities agencies).